Hanjin, pooped again


#1

The relationship between C. H. Choe founder of Hanjin Trucking and Henry Gilbertson, executive plenipotentiary Sealand, leveraged experience in trucking, port operations and port rotation to inaugurate Hanjin Transpacific Service. The liner service called on Long Beach, Oakland and Seatle range to Incheon, Busan, Tokyo, Keelung, Kaohsiung, Hong Kong. I joined the company in 1980 and worked at their corporate office, the Bermuda Building in downtown Oakland. The liner service started with four 2500 TEU ships, all brand spanking new.

Between 1977 and 1980 the United States Justice Department broke apart the North Atlantic and Trans Pacific Carrier Conference SRO’s. The conference price regulators on the North Atlantic and Trans Pacific liner service routes did two things, they stabilized or engaged in price fixed published tariff east and westbound freight rates. Shipping Rate or affreightment by SIC code priced by the ton or linear foot the cost of carriage for all conference members. Second, it guaranteed a minimum rate of return. If a carrier marketed p-value of lucrative cargo, refer in hi-cubes, 40+5 or apples to Japan and oranges to China for the New Year, the Conference published the rate.

When NVOCC’s or non-conference vessel operators TRANSFREIGHT Line as an example, came into the market, prices went south, and carriers got squeezed. Paranoia and affreightment are ugly ducks. One is symptomatic of psychosis cured with hefty amounts of gin. The other is simple arithmetic and a scathing indictment against Hanjin Management. Always eager to please the boss, the Hanjin Container Line never got the math, 2+2=4. The equation equals four always, for all time, even in Korea. Sorry to see Hanjin go, but in the name of Neptune go, go quickly and go now.

BobDurino


#2

[QUOTE=bobdurino;190523]
Sorry to see Hanjin go, but in the name of Neptune go, go quickly and go now.[/QUOTE]

And don’t take any taxpayer money to offload your ships! If the shippers want their cargo let them pick up or guaranty the port costs. By the way once they are unloaded what happens to them? That segment seems beyond “reorganization”.

Do you know what’s at stake for the NVOCC’s? Did they pay for the space in advance, charge shippers in advance make their money and now even though the carrier crashed and burned they walk away whole? Just curious how that works.


#3

NVOCC’s should simply be banned

how on earth are you a “common carrier” when you ain’t “carrying” SHIT?


#4

That’s the state of ocean shipping at this moment with too many ships, not enough cargo. Now that Hanjin has popped, Rickmers is in real financial trouble, as well as the banks that finance both companies. The question is where does the contagion, if any, stop.

As a side note an 8000 TEU container ships day rate is about $7k/day.


#5

Crew on a Hanjin ship not allowed ashore in US ports because “they may jump ship”: https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/202919/itf-criticizes-us-treatment-of-hanjin-crew/


#6

The shortage of container trailer chassis is on the forefront. The owners of the chassis do not want a Hanjin container tying up their equipment and then held hostage. The containers are taking up valuable space.

Thousands of cargo containers piled up at SoCal ports, with nowhere to go.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/04/thousands-of-cargo-containers-piled-up-at-socal-ports-with-nowhere-to-go/

BY CHRIS DUPIN |MONDAY, OCTOBER 03, 2016 American Shipper

http://www.americanshipper.com/main/news/hanjin-containers-clog-southern-california-ports-65560.aspx#hide